Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

My brother is in an indie band and they payed to go to a small but professional studio and record an EP. The content is all original and they have copyright but he saw a blog about indie bands publishing through tunecore on multiple services {iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc...} getting take down notices from companies claiming to represent the copyright holder.

He's a little freaked out because although they payed all that money for copyright and self publishing they really couldn't afford a lawyer if something like that happened to the band.

i get those infringement notices by youtube all the time - except that i have all the right to use the material in question (i make music videos) - it's a hassle, that's usually sorted out by an e-mail - still, it's fucking annoying to constantly "clear" the rights of material, you already have the rights to - often multiple times - because some stupid program identifies the material as belonging to someone you've licensed it to.

it also cost's money (time).i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.

Did you RTFA? Apparently RightsCorp gives the ISP the list of IPs for free. They make their money off of the folks who do the downloading ("for $20 per track or movie we'll remove your name from this list we're sending to your ISP"). Anyone still on the list goes to the ISP who is legally required to send letters to the subscriber. This increases their chances of losing the customer. Without the list of IPs provided by RightsCorp, the ISP legally doesn't have to do anything.

So "I'll sell you this list of IP addresses for $10 each" would be met with "sorry, no idea who you are or what you're talking about, kthxby"

i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.

Why small? May be it should start small and escalate based on each false claim they have filed, may be exponentially. Also small should be in relation to the size and strength of the spurious claimer. What is small for RIAA is not huge for the lone indie trying to get his/her work back from the false claimers.

Take that advise with a grain of salt. It all depends where the guy you are extorting lives. In Sweden, extortion by threatening to file a police report or lawsuit is a felony, punishable with 2 years in prison.

YES. There have been some RICO lawsuits started. I don't think they've been decided (or even heard) yet.

Not only is this pretty blatantly "racketeering", but when other companies tried to do this before, courts found that in order to tell who was infringing copyrights, the "detection" company had to be breaking the same laws as the people they were trying to out.

It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law.

And yes, the basic business model is extortion. Every case I have read about lately having to do with this has run into courts that acknowledged that the methods being used were fundamentally extortionate. EFF has been winning left and right, as well. Where they haven't been directly involved in defense they have often provided amicus briefs to the court in the cases, and in a very high proportion of those cases, the courts have ruled just as EFF suggested was legally proper.

How "us guys think we can get away" with WHAT? What is it you think I am doing wrong? Please be specific.

The law doesn't like losing, so it is phrased for the win.

"The law" isn't losing, it's winning. THE LAW says an IP address is not probable cause. Many courts, including Federal courts, have clearly said so. One court ruled not long ago that not only does an IP address not equal a person, often it doesn't even equal a house. As I illustrated in my example.

The people who are losing are those who are trying to extort money from others who are "innocent"... or at least who have not committed any crimes. That's a victory for THE LAW, not a loss. The law does not like extortion and intimidation of common citizens.

The account holder paying the bill is responsible for the usage so if you let other people use your connection you are responsible for what they do with it, especially even more so since you purposely failed to secure your connection by providing this "public service" you are even more on the hook for it

Is this what you think I have been doing wrong? I think you misunderstand. *I* am the account holder, and I pay for a premium account. *I* am letting my neighbors use my internet, which *I* pay too much to the cable company for.

But even if it was a misunderstanding of what you meant, you are still wrong. Legally, I am very much NOT responsible for what other people do with it.

If you loaned your rifle to a neighbor who was going hunting, and he killed somebody with it instead, does that mean you are guilty of murder? Of course not.

If somebody "borrowed" or stole the rake I left sitting in the front yard, and used it to kill somebody, would I be guilty of murder? Of course not.

THE LAW says that you are not responsible for what somebody else does with something of yours, unless you were complicit in the act. If you loaned your rifle to him SO THAT he could murder somebody, then yes you are a criminal. Otherwise, no.

In the same way: if somebody uses my internet to do something that isn't kosher, it's their problem, and it very definitely is NOT my problem, under the law. I am not required by law to police my neighbor. That is something that happens in police states.

Why should my home be any different from an "internet cafe"? If you went into one, and did something wrong with the internet, would they be responsible by law? Of course not. If they were, internet cafes would have ceased to exist.

(By the way: the courts have ruled that my home is NOT different from an internet cafe, in that respect.)

I pay very close attention to the law in this regard. I should also mention that (A) some major ISPs are now renting out equipment so their customers can set up the same kind of public networks, and (B) the EFF highly recommends it for everybody.

I understand if that offends your concept of how the law works, but that is the way the law does work, and also how it should work in a free country.